1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JEAN PHAREL SANZPIERRE, Case No.: 26cv1924-LL-MSB
7 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 8 v. DENYING IN PART AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 9 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of CORPUS [ECF No. 9]; the Department of Homeland Security, et 10 al., ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 11 Respondents. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 12 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF No. 3] 13 14 On March 26, 2026, Petitioner Jean Pharel Sanzpierre, proceeding pro se, filed a 15 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The Court 16 appointed Federal Defenders to represent Petitioner (ECF No. 4), and they filed an 17 Amended Petition (ECF No. 9). 18 In the Amended Petition, counsel requests that the Court “should order Respondents 19 to release Mr. Sanzpierre unless they can provide documents showing he is not a derivative 20 citizen.” Id. at 3. Petitioner states in relevant part as follows: 21 Jean Pharel Sanzpierre entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) in 1995 when he was 6 years old. He came to join his mother, who was also 22 an LPR. At some point, his mother applied for and was granted U.S. 23 citizenship, but Mr. Sanzpierre does not know when. His mother is currently in a rehabilitation center and does not have access to her immigration record. 24 25 In 2023, Mr. Sanzpierre was convicted of aggravated battery in Georgia and served two years. When he finished serving his criminal sentence, ICE took 26 him into custody and transferred him to Otay Mesa Detention. There, an IJ 27 ordered him removed but granted him deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The DHS appealed, and this appeal is currently 28 pending at the BIA. 1 Mr. Sanzpierre has now been detained in ICE custody for 16 months. Because there is a high probability that Mr. Sanzpierre derived citizenship from his 2 mother, this court should order the government to produce his mother’s 3 naturalization application and certificate. But even if Mr. Sanzpierre turns out not to be a U.S. citizen, this Court should ‘conclud[e] that [his] unreasonably 4 prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond 5 hearing violates due process.’ (internal citation omitted). It should do so because Mr. Sanzpierre satisfies the six-factor test set forth in Banda v. 6 McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1118 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 7 Id. at 2. 8 Respondents filed a Return (ECF No. 10), and Petitioner filed a Traverse (ECF No. 9 11). In the Return, Respondents argue that “Petitioner is not a derivative citizen of the 10 United States and he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) for 11 having an aggravated felony conviction for a crime of violence for which the term of 12 imprisonment was over one year.” ECF No. 10 at 2. Upon the Court’s review of the 13 briefing, on May 7, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to produce the following 14 supplemental documents for the Court’s consideration: 15 Petitioner’s A-file documents that would show whether he is a derivative 16 citizen including: (1) his mother’s naturalization certificate, (2) his mother’s application for naturalization and (3) any agency records, notes, reports or 17 decisions relating to the adjudication of the naturalization application. 18 ECF No. 12. In response to the Court’s Order, on May 14, 2026, Respondents lodged 19 supplemental documents with the Court including the Declaration of Daniel Negrin, 20 Deportation Officer, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigrations and 21 Customs Enforcement, and supporting documents filed under seal. ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16, 22 17. On May 27, 2026, Petitioner filed a Response to Respondents’ Supplemental 23 Documents. ECF No. 18. 24 Upon the Court’s review of the supplemental documents and Petitioner’s response 25 thereto, the Court rejects Petitioner’s contention that he derived United States citizenship 26 through his mother. The evidence submitted by Respondents establishes that Petitioner’s 27 mother naturalized on August 23, 2012, when Petitioner was 24 years old. Because 28 petitioner was over the age of eighteen at the time of his mother’s naturalization, he was 1 ineligible to derive citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a). Although Petitioner relies on 2 Brown v. Holder, 763 F. 3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 2014), it is distinguishable from the facts 3 in this case because in Brown, the government’s deliberate indifference was with respect 4 to the naturalization application itself which delayed the disposition of that application. 5 Here, the government concedes that it lost Petitioner’s A-file, but there is nothing in the 6 record to indicate that it had an effect on Petitioner’s mother’s naturalization process or 7 any apparent due process concerns. Accordingly, Petitioner’s derivative citizenship claim 8 lacks merit and the Amended Petition seeking release on this ground must be DENIED. 9 Petitioner argues that alternatively, this Court should conclude “that [his] 10 unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized 11 bond hearing violates due process.” ECF No. 9 at 2. In support thereof, Petitioner argues 12 that “many courts have held that noncitizens detained under § 1226(c) as well as § 1225(b), 13 may bring as-applied constitutional challenges to their mandatory detention without a bond 14 hearing.” ECF No. 11 at 5 (citing Rowe v. Archambeault, No. 26-cv-1774-GPS-DEB, 2026 15 WL 879487, *3-*7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2026); Rodriguez v. Frink, 2026 WL 709487, *2- 16 *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2026)). Respondents argue in the Return that “Petitioner fails to 17 establish how mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) violates his right to due 18 process.” Return at 4. 19 “Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding 20 the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes 21 unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025 22 WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). However, “[n]early all district courts that 23 have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that 24 prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, 25 will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d 1005 26 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (collecting cases). In 27 determining whether detention has become unreasonable, courts evaluate factors including 28 “the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future detention, and the delays 1 in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the government.” Lopez v. 2 Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Some courts also consider the 3 conditions of detention and the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final 4 order of removal. See, e.g, Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2025). 5 The Court finds that Petitioner has established he is entitled to a bond hearing. 6 Petitioner’s length of detention, over sixteen months, without a bond hearing weighs in 7 Petitioner’s favor.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JEAN PHAREL SANZPIERRE, Case No.: 26cv1924-LL-MSB
7 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 8 v. DENYING IN PART AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 9 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of CORPUS [ECF No. 9]; the Department of Homeland Security, et 10 al., ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 11 Respondents. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 12 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF No. 3] 13 14 On March 26, 2026, Petitioner Jean Pharel Sanzpierre, proceeding pro se, filed a 15 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The Court 16 appointed Federal Defenders to represent Petitioner (ECF No. 4), and they filed an 17 Amended Petition (ECF No. 9). 18 In the Amended Petition, counsel requests that the Court “should order Respondents 19 to release Mr. Sanzpierre unless they can provide documents showing he is not a derivative 20 citizen.” Id. at 3. Petitioner states in relevant part as follows: 21 Jean Pharel Sanzpierre entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) in 1995 when he was 6 years old. He came to join his mother, who was also 22 an LPR. At some point, his mother applied for and was granted U.S. 23 citizenship, but Mr. Sanzpierre does not know when. His mother is currently in a rehabilitation center and does not have access to her immigration record. 24 25 In 2023, Mr. Sanzpierre was convicted of aggravated battery in Georgia and served two years. When he finished serving his criminal sentence, ICE took 26 him into custody and transferred him to Otay Mesa Detention. There, an IJ 27 ordered him removed but granted him deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The DHS appealed, and this appeal is currently 28 pending at the BIA. 1 Mr. Sanzpierre has now been detained in ICE custody for 16 months. Because there is a high probability that Mr. Sanzpierre derived citizenship from his 2 mother, this court should order the government to produce his mother’s 3 naturalization application and certificate. But even if Mr. Sanzpierre turns out not to be a U.S. citizen, this Court should ‘conclud[e] that [his] unreasonably 4 prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond 5 hearing violates due process.’ (internal citation omitted). It should do so because Mr. Sanzpierre satisfies the six-factor test set forth in Banda v. 6 McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1118 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 7 Id. at 2. 8 Respondents filed a Return (ECF No. 10), and Petitioner filed a Traverse (ECF No. 9 11). In the Return, Respondents argue that “Petitioner is not a derivative citizen of the 10 United States and he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) for 11 having an aggravated felony conviction for a crime of violence for which the term of 12 imprisonment was over one year.” ECF No. 10 at 2. Upon the Court’s review of the 13 briefing, on May 7, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to produce the following 14 supplemental documents for the Court’s consideration: 15 Petitioner’s A-file documents that would show whether he is a derivative 16 citizen including: (1) his mother’s naturalization certificate, (2) his mother’s application for naturalization and (3) any agency records, notes, reports or 17 decisions relating to the adjudication of the naturalization application. 18 ECF No. 12. In response to the Court’s Order, on May 14, 2026, Respondents lodged 19 supplemental documents with the Court including the Declaration of Daniel Negrin, 20 Deportation Officer, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigrations and 21 Customs Enforcement, and supporting documents filed under seal. ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16, 22 17. On May 27, 2026, Petitioner filed a Response to Respondents’ Supplemental 23 Documents. ECF No. 18. 24 Upon the Court’s review of the supplemental documents and Petitioner’s response 25 thereto, the Court rejects Petitioner’s contention that he derived United States citizenship 26 through his mother. The evidence submitted by Respondents establishes that Petitioner’s 27 mother naturalized on August 23, 2012, when Petitioner was 24 years old. Because 28 petitioner was over the age of eighteen at the time of his mother’s naturalization, he was 1 ineligible to derive citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1431(a). Although Petitioner relies on 2 Brown v. Holder, 763 F. 3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 2014), it is distinguishable from the facts 3 in this case because in Brown, the government’s deliberate indifference was with respect 4 to the naturalization application itself which delayed the disposition of that application. 5 Here, the government concedes that it lost Petitioner’s A-file, but there is nothing in the 6 record to indicate that it had an effect on Petitioner’s mother’s naturalization process or 7 any apparent due process concerns. Accordingly, Petitioner’s derivative citizenship claim 8 lacks merit and the Amended Petition seeking release on this ground must be DENIED. 9 Petitioner argues that alternatively, this Court should conclude “that [his] 10 unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized 11 bond hearing violates due process.” ECF No. 9 at 2. In support thereof, Petitioner argues 12 that “many courts have held that noncitizens detained under § 1226(c) as well as § 1225(b), 13 may bring as-applied constitutional challenges to their mandatory detention without a bond 14 hearing.” ECF No. 11 at 5 (citing Rowe v. Archambeault, No. 26-cv-1774-GPS-DEB, 2026 15 WL 879487, *3-*7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2026); Rodriguez v. Frink, 2026 WL 709487, *2- 16 *4 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2026)). Respondents argue in the Return that “Petitioner fails to 17 establish how mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) violates his right to due 18 process.” Return at 4. 19 “Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding 20 the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes 21 unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025 22 WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). However, “[n]early all district courts that 23 have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that 24 prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, 25 will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d 1005 26 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (collecting cases). In 27 determining whether detention has become unreasonable, courts evaluate factors including 28 “the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future detention, and the delays 1 in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the government.” Lopez v. 2 Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Some courts also consider the 3 conditions of detention and the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final 4 order of removal. See, e.g, Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2025). 5 The Court finds that Petitioner has established he is entitled to a bond hearing. 6 Petitioner’s length of detention, over sixteen months, without a bond hearing weighs in 7 Petitioner’s favor. Courts have found detention of lesser lengths without a bond hearing 8 weighs toward finding that detention has become unreasonably prolonged. See, e.g., Rowe 9 v. Archambeault, 2026 WL 879487, *3-*7 (ordering a bond hearing for a noncitizen 10 detained under § 1226(c) for close to twelve months); Guatam v. Corr. Corp of Am., No. 11 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 25846, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026) (finding that one- 12 year detention weighed in favor of granting a bond hearing); Sadeqi, 809 F. Supp. 3d at 13 1095 (finding that eleven month detention without a bond hearing “absent meaningful 14 rebuttal by [r]espondents” was unreasonable and violated due process); Amado, 2025 WL 15 3079052, at *5 (“Courts have found detention over seven months without a bond hearing 16 weighs toward a finding that it is unreasonable.”). The length of detention factor here 17 favors Petitioner. 18 As to the likely duration of future detention, Petitioner argues that he has reason to 19 anticipate significant future detention since his case is currently pending at the BIA and 20 will likely go to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 9 at 7. Petitioner argues that his appeal process 21 could go on for up to two years or longer. Id. at 7 (citing Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1119). 22 The Court agrees, since Respondents “cannot predict with any degree of confidence when 23 the BIA appeal will be resolved.” Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 2020 WL 95633, 24 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2020). Therefore, the likely duration of future detention weighs in 25 Petitioner’s favor. 26 Delay in removal proceedings is neutral since the record does not suggest delay by 27 Respondents nor Petitioner. See generally Amended Pet.; Ret. Balancing the discussed 28 1 factors, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably 2 prolonged, and therefore, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 5 Mr. Sanzpierre’s Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 9) as follows: 6 1. Mr. Sanzpierre’s request for immediate release is DENIED. 7 2. Mr. Sanzpierre’s alternative request for the Court to order a bond hearing is 8 GRANTED. The Court ORDERS the government to provide Mr. Sanzpierre 9 with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a 10 neutral immigration judge in which the government bears the burden of 11 establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Sanzpierre is a danger 12 to the community or a flight risk if released. Concerns about interrupting court 13 schedules is not a ground to deny bond. 14 3. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and 15 Mr. Sanzpierre’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond is 16 appropriate. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990–91 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 4. If requested by Mr. Sanzpierre, the government SHALL assist Mr. Sanzpierre 18 in obtaining the audio recording of the bond hearing. Martinez v. Clark, 124 19 F.4th 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 20 (9th Cir. 2011)). 21 5. Mr. Sanzpierre’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 3) is 22 DENIED AS MOOT in light of the Court’s ruling herein. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / l 6. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Mr. Sanzpierre’s favor and close 2 this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * || Dated: May 28, 2026 ~
6 Honorable Linda Lopez 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28